furthermore, plaintiffs failed to prove their alleged ownership of the land in question, so that the

presumption that defendants, being possessors, are the lawful owners thereof, had not been overcome.
Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration of the order of dismissal of the complaint having been denied, they
appealed to the Court of Appeals, which forwarded the case to us because the appeal raises question of
law.

The sole issue herein is whether the trial court erred in dismissing plaintiffs-appellants’ complaint on the
ground of prescription of action.

The dismissal is erroneous. The land in question is admittedly covered by a Torrens title in the name of
Estefania Atun, deceased aunt of plaintiffs. Section 40 of Act 496 expressly provides that no title to
registered land in derogation to that of the registered owner shall be acquired by prescription or
adverse possession. And this Court has repeatedly held that the right of the registered owner to recover
possession of the registered property is equally imprescriptible, since possession is a mere consequence
of ownership. (Manlapas v. Llorente, 48 Phil., 298, 308; Eugenio v. Perdido, supra, p. 41; J. M. Tuason &
Co., Inc. v. Bolaños, 96 Phil., 106.)

"We are aware, of course, that title by adverse possession (acquisitive prescription) is distinct from the
statute of limitations (extinctive prescription) and the operation and effects of such distinction has been
explored during the discussions of this petition for review.

But we have finally agreed that, as to lands registered under the Torrens system, ten years’ adverse
possession may not be permitted to defeat the owners’ right to possession — which is the necessary
incident of ownership. Otherwise loss of the land by prescription would be indirectly approved, in
violation of sec. 46 of the Land Registration Act. This statute, being a later enactment, may be said to
have partially amended the Statute of Limitations established in Act No. 190 in so far as the registered
lands are concerned." (Juan Eugenio, Et. Al. v. Silvina Perdido, Et Al., L-7083, May 19, 1955.)

And if prescription is unavailing against the registered owner, it must be equally unavailing against the
latter’s hereditary successors, because they merely step into the shoes of the decedent by operation of
law (new Civil Code, Art. 777; Art. 657, old), the title or right undergoing no change by its transmission
mortis causa.

The lower Court also erred in ruling that plaintiffs-appellants have failed to show a better title than that
of defendants who are presumed to possess with just title. As the land in question still stands registered